learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by #1FacingStudent on October 23, 2024 11:09

Yes, I believe that soldiers can act morally and honorably during wartime. It seems terribly ignorant to disregard the scale and pressures of soldiers in wartime. Many soldiers fight because they have been conscripted to do so and across the globe punishment for refusing service is not always as lenient as prison time. How benighted is it to presume that a “good” person fighting an unjust war is only deemed honorable by their willingness to resist. For many, resisting is not an option. For many, the hope of returning from war to aid in the lives of their loved ones hold far greater importance than a chance at being a martyr for rebellion. It is also not the fault of a person to be comfortable with the life they have grown accustomed to and only seek to restore that life. It is easy to confuse ‘what is’ with ‘what ought to be,’ especially when ‘what is’ has worked out in your favor. I do see that there resides great honor in resisting but when conforming aids in one’s own well being and the wellbeing of their family, is that honor to be dismissed?

It is also important to note that it isn't the fault of a person to succumb to charisma. In the German army alone nearly 14 million people served. The men so far removed from the center of the Nazi movement were serving because they were promised a paycheck and some immunity from the collateral damage of war. Hitler amassed such a following largely due to his abilities as a public speaker and his persuasive charisma. Power resides where a man believes it resides and a very small man can cast a very large shadow. Yes, it is the responsibility of a person to educate themselves on all aspects of the world around them, but they mustn't be judged as immoral people when the opportunity for education is shrouded by their setting.

Hi #1FacingStudent,

I wrote a very similar thought in my response about people being conscripted into war or feeling that war was the only option. In that case, I agree that one can still act honorably during war. In that case, they are controlling what they can, their actions during war, instead of what they can’t, the fact that they are obligated to fight. You bring up that there are different types of honor– one being standing up for what you believe in and the other being taking pride in protecting your family and community. I like the point that “what is” can be confused with “what ought to be,” when they are not the same. However, I am confused on how this relates to the rest of the point you are trying to make. As for your second paragraph, I agree that we shouldn’t judge people as immoral because they have not had the chance to be educated first. While I also agree that it is easy, and not necessarily the fault of the person, to be convinced by charisma, I think it is also an individual's job to listen to what a person is really saying, regardless of their tone/persuasiveness. Overall, this was a great response. However, next time I would go a little more in depth into your arguments so that your response is longer and more fleshed out.

Originally posted by bear00 on October 21, 2024 20:22

The question of whether citizens should refuse to participate in a war they believe is unjust is based on ideas such as one's ethical beliefs, loyalty to their country, and individual responsibility. This problem makes us think about what it means to be courageous in the context of war and whether it is more courageous to go against an unjust idea/conflict or cowardly to fight in a war one believes is wrong.

Generally, wars can be seen as unjust for many reasons, such as not having a legit cause for defense, the violation of human rights, or being motivated by greed/power. When a nation enters a war like this, citizens may find it hard to pick a side. Should they stray away from their ways and disobey their government, or fight for something that they themselves do not believe in.

Refusing to fight in a war one sees as unjust can take a lot of courage. It often means facing criticism, legal consequences, or even violence. For example, in the Vietnam War, Many people who resisted being drafted faced imprisonment and social exclusion. Their choice to refuse military service was based on the belief that some wars are fundamentally wrong. In this way, it’s fair to argue that it takes more bravery to go against what the government says than to follow orders without question.

On the other hand, some people might argue that fighting in a war one believes is morally wrong makes them a coward. This viewpoint suggests that those who blindly follow orders lose their own beliefs. By not questioning the severity of their actions, they risk having the responsibility of these actions being put on them. Soldiers have a duty to think deeply about the conflicts they are involved in, and failing to do so can lead to immense damage and tragedy.

The outcomes of these actions can vary depending on the political views and unity of a nation. In a democracy, a refusal to fight may lead to discussions about the war’s justification, potentially causing it to end. In contrast, in more authoritarian regimes, disagreement could result in harsh punishments, escalating the conflict and leading to suffering for many. One example of this is The Christmas Truce of 1914. Many nations were in heated altercations throughout World War 1. When Christmas approached, many of the armies, such as the British, German, and French created a ceasefire along the western front. Soldiers exchanged gifts, ideas, and even sang Christmas carols. This adds to the idea that many people are fighting for their government, and not their beliefs. These soldiers have a lot in common, and war puts a pin in those relationships and focuses on what the higher people believe.

In the excerpt about Just War Theory, it talks about what circumstances play into the decision for starting the war. It states that in order to start a war, the two sides must agree on what extremes the war will go to. There are some instances where the two sides differ and cannot decide on a limit. This causes both sides to be able to escalate a war against a group that they already do not like or see as “not human”. This creates a problem that can lead to many people getting hurt for reasons that could have been avoided.

In conclusion, while it’s crucial for people to think about their moral responsibilities during war, the problem is in balancing personal beliefs with duties to one’s country and society. It raises important questions about justice, loyalty, and courage. While personal belief is important, the possible trouble that comes with people disagreeing must be taken into account, as it could lead to both good changes and destructive outcomes.

I like the ideas that this post shows. I agree with these ideas as well on how it takes alot of courage to stand up for what you believe in, in times of war. However I slightly disagree that it doesn’t take courage to follow orders. While you are not following your beliefs the simple act of fighting in war is still significant and takes lots of courage. To kill other human beings is no easy feat and takes a lot more courage than people realize. Regardless, I think you bring good points to why you think the way you do but it seems sort of incomplete. Like you are stating facts but not giving your actual opinions on if you think yes this is cowardice or no it’s actually brave. I liked the example that you used on the refusal to fight. I did not know about this so reading and learning about it was very interesting. The final point is also intriguing because countries make this whole ordeal about following the rules of war yet each and every rule is manipulated for their benefit. Especially in the case of scale I feel like they don’t agree on it at all and just go at it like you said.

Originally posted by lightbulb89 on October 21, 2024 20:12

I believe that war isn’t always war and sometimes the violence can be justified. Although this is a controversial statement, I believe that the Just War Theory allows for an understanding of war. It helps with acknowledging the moral weight of violence and seeing that in extreme cases violence may be necessary to achieve what is needed to move on. The Just War Theory helps us understand the consideration of the potential outcomes and the balance of peace and pragmatic realities of conflicts. I believe that the Just War Theory can be a bridge between the two ideas because it helps to balance morality against violence with the potential for just outcomes. If the reasons for war are legitimized with reasons like self defense or protecting your people, then it can be possible that a war is justified since there is a good possible outcome as well (peace and justice). If a nation is waging for unjust reasons with unjust outcomes, I believe that citizens should refuse to participate in the war. As we saw in one of the articles that we read for homework, the German people were going against the war and refusing to participate, but once the war was in motion all the protest suddenly came to a halt. It was either radio silence or people cheering for the other side. This happens because people do not want to be singled out and feel as though they are betraying their country. I feel as though not fighting in defense of your nation or fighting in a war that you believe is morally wrong can be a mix of both. I think that people who choose not to fight in the war because of their morals can be completely correct and that is their own personal preference, but at the same time while they aren’t fighting somebody else is fighting and feels morally wrong doing so. Same goes for the other way around with the fighting but knowing it’s morally wrong. If you don’t do so, somebody else will. I believe that it is 50/50. I both agree and disagree with McMahan’s statement. He explains that the battlefield doesn’t “absolve” a soldier's moral responsibility and if they are fighting for an unjust cause. He explains that if the war is unjust then actions may be taken and be morally compromised with or without the soldier’s conduct. The rules of Jus In Bello help explain that proportionality is ensuring that the harm caused by military actions will be proportional to the military advantage gained. This can be applied to McMahan’s argument and help open eyes. Since the soldiers are the ones navigating the people through the war, they provide a basis for conducting themselves with honor. Although, I disagree since the principles of Jus In Bello is that such discrimination and proportionality helps soldiers to adhere to the ethical standard with a flawed context. Soldiers tend to find themselves in situations where they have to limit the agency over the war’s justification.

Hi lightbulb89!

I’m curious about the meaning of your opening sentence. Do you mean that war doesn’t always entail blatant violence? Or do you mean that controlled violence should not be considered an act of war?

I don’t totally agree with your argument that just war theory is a good way to balance the morality of war with its potential outcomes. Just war theory in its entirety is highly subjective. While just war theory does provide a basis for morality in war, I believe that it would be extremely easy for an aggressor to look at things from a perspective where everything is just, rather than actually considering the consequences of their actions. An aggressor may find a way to justify killing a million civilians if it gets them what they want. An aggressor may truly believe that the toll is proportional to the outcome.

I agree with your statement that civilians fight in wars they may not believe in to avoid being singled out (social conformity theory). I disagree that refusing to defend your nation is morally wrong. From the perspective of the nation, the authority figure, yes, this may be seen as disobedience and refusal to cooperate, but from the perspective of the prospective perpetrator this is entirely moral. They are sticking by what they believe rather than just going along with the masses. I believe this takes far more courage than fighting in a war you don’t believe in, because as you mentioned, non-conformists are highly singled out and often targeted.

While you have great connections to the articles we read, I think you could be more specific. Rather than just saying ‘just war theory says this’, cite the article title and use a direct quote. Additionally, while social psychology wasn’t the focus of this response, I can see a lot of interesting connections to social psychology theories you could have made in your arguments. Try to look for these connections and highlight them in your responses, it will only make your argument stronger.

Originally posted by shesfromouterspace on October 21, 2024 20:12

I do not think that war is always wrong, however actions during and after a war can change the justifications. Following the model of the just war theory, killing is wrong, but who is being killed can shift views. If a nation is attacked first with no warning, they have a right to defend themselves on the basis that they are defending their citizens. I think an even more specific form of having the right to go to war on the idea of protecting citizens is if soldiers who are the aggressors enlisted with their free will. Even if they thought they were fighting for a just cause, they still attacked another country without substantial time spent finding a peaceful solution. For example, young soldiers who joined the Nazi’s because of a twisted form of hyper-nationalism that led them to execute Jewish people.

Certain aspects of war can be broken down into two categories, the intrinsicism model, that certain actions in war are either 100% bad or 100% good, and the consequentialism model, that there are justifications for bad actions if the outcome is beneficial. In modern times I think the consequentialism model is the most repetitive excuse for countries to enact violence another. Many countries tend to follow the model of “act first, think later” because they feel the need to catch another country off guard, in order to boost their means of a just war. That means, entering a war knowing that winning is guaranteed. When following consequentialist thinking, the scale of violence used is usually disproportionate and may make a war unjust. As stated in Excerpt 2, “the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate.” Using a modern example, Russia is substantially bigger than Ukraine, to the point where Ukraine fights back against Russian forces with a vast majority of foreign aid. This inequality in power may give Russia the idea that their war is just, but for the Ukrainians their war is just for another reason, defense.

Any nation that wages an unjust war has a vast majority of citizens that do not fight. Whether pacifists or eligible to enlist, those people have a choice to make, support their country, even if they do not believe in their cause, or face discrimination. I think that citizens should have the ability to refuse to participate in an unjust war, because their country isn't what defines them. While nationalism and togetherness are promoted in war countries, it is the individuals who participate who give their lives and resources for the cause. To make citizens participate in something against their belief is the government becoming too involved in the lives of citizens. However, if each citizen acts on their own accord, sub groups may form that will cause even more violence in that country, only this time internally. Widespread chaos, and fights on domestic soil lead to the destruction of not just the country, but the people who may not even have taken the lives of others.

Hi shesfromouterspace! I really enjoyed your reflection and how you scoped in on jus in bello and jus post bellum, rather than a brief overview of everything. While I don’t think that justification changes based on who is killed, because people are killed in war whether they are threats or not, I think the justification changes based on who’s targeted, and other than that wording, I agree with what you had to say. I also liked how you tied it into modern day conflicts in describing consequentialism, because it’s really important to apply these principles to a modern context and question how they affect our views on certain conflicts. I think it was also important to the overall effects of conflict and how that changes our perception of the conflict as a whole. Proportion is a very big piece in justifying war, because we see so often that conflicts’ means to an end are usually wildly disproportionate. I think it could have enhanced your argument to talk about what is considered appropriate justification for the start of a war (jus ad bellum), but overall, you wrote a great reflection. Keep it up!

Originally posted by cherry.pie on October 22, 2024 07:01

If a nation were to wage war for unjust reasons, then citizens should have the right to be able to refuse to participate in the war efforts. In Excerpt 1, which discusses Jus Ad Bellum, the first principle they establish is “having just cause” to begin a war. This entails that if a war is started for unjust reasons, then citizens should have every right to respond in a negative way. And so, the citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war effort if the reasons are unjust because the nation itself is failing to adhere to the principles that are established by Jus Ad Bellum. However, if not enough people are willing to participate in the efforts of the war, then it complicates things. Of course, citizens should continue to have the right to refuse to participate in the war efforts, but there will come a time where citizens may be forced to participate, something that they should prepare for if that ever occurs.

It is not cowardice to fight in a war that is morally wrong, if anything, it takes courage to fight in a war that you believe to be morally incorrect. If one chooses to not fight in a war to defend their country, then that is just a common occurrence that goes on even in today’s world. People may love their nation, yet they also may not be willing to fight in the war in fear of leaving their family behind at the worst time. For the people who are fighting in a war they view as morally wrong, that does not mean that they are cowardice. If one is choosing to fight in a war where the morals are incorrect, then you have more courage than timidness to fight in the war because one may be thinking that this is a disgrace to what they have grown to believe is morally right and sound. For them to forsake that in order to fight in a war they view as wrong, that takes quite a bit of guts.

The consequences that citizens could face if they only act according to their own moral compass during a war can be that they place those morals on a higher pedestal over anything else. For example, if someone’s moral compass is centered around the concept of loyalty, then they will feel loyal to the nation they live in and would be glad to participate in the war efforts, whether it be fighting enemies or assisting from the sidelines. However, say if someone’s moral compass was centered around the idea of pride. They would want to be the one that’s in control because their pride would not allow it, which can lead to internal conflicts that could impact the group they are fighting in. If citizens act on their moral compass, then their own morals could stab them in the back and lead to the downfall of not just themselves, but the military they are fighting in and the nation itself. These consequences, however, are realistic because we are all human, and humans can make mistakes. Yes, they may impact how the battle ends, but that is just how life works.

Greetings cherry.pie,

I appreciate your views and opinions, and some I do agree with, while others I slightly disagree with. I agree if a war is immoral the people should have the right to refuse to fight, but only if there are enough people because times like that are delicate and vulnerable for one’s nation. On the other hand, your point on being brave to fight a morally incorrect war, I think it is quite the opposite. Fighting a war does show bravery, but I believe staying true to yourself and your own beliefs also takes strength. Fighting a war because it is expected instead of staying firm in one’s values I think is not cowardice but also not brave either, it could be fear or a plethora of other things.The last sentences in the last paragraph were a little confusing to understand, but I got the premise that acting solely on one’s own morals can lead to the downfall of more than just on the individual level. I agree with that statement but the last sentences could have been elaborated on a little more for a better understanding. Overall the reflection was thorough and understandable even though I did not agree with everything that you shared, I respect your viewpoints regardless.

Originally posted by Iambatman64 on October 23, 2024 20:36

I think war can be justified. I think there are two sides of whether war can be seen as a right and it ranges from internal and external beliefs. Internally, war is justified if most citizens are ready to die for the cause. It must be and educated decision and for the betterment of their country and the world around them. Externally war can be justified if they abide by the rules of war: using a necessary amount of force, it is a last resort, they have good intentions, and there is a just cause.

I think the consequentialism model is more accurate for the modern world because it's more realistic. People are killed every single day and killing even though it's bad has been normalized in many countries through the use of tv shows and local news. Also there is a decrease in the belief in religion which usually states that killings are morally incorrect. Therefore with the normalization and lack of moral boundary, a more consequentialist model would be in line with human morals today.

I think citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort because killing someone is not a joke or in any way permissible. There must be a good reason for an individual to kill another, so if citizens do not support their nation's war effort then they shouldn’t have to fight. However, if the war is starting to kill and harm too many people from your nation then you will have to fight back. At that point, it is either killed or be killed, and you must kill for means of survival.

I do think it takes a lot of courage to not fight in defense of your nation in a war in which you believe is morally wrong. There is a lot of societal pressure these days to conform to the war efforts of your country and its human nature to do that. I do believe it's cowardice to fight in a war you don’t believe in, but I do understand why a person might do that. As I said previously, there is a lot of societal pressure from friends and family, but it could also be the law in your country that you must fight in the war. This is similar to the American draft system. It may also be the only way for a person to get the money to provide for their family. Either way, every circumstance is different, so we shouldn’t become prone to fundamental attribution error and assume that a person is cowardice since they fought in a war they don’t believe in.

I think one of the consequences of people acting on their own accord is the third principle “the principle of responsibility, which demands an examination of where responsibility lies in war” (Excerpt 3). I think responsibility lies not only in if you choose to fight but if you don’t choose to fight. These consequences range from guilt to war crimes. There must be an abundance of thought that comes from even thinking about wars as an option. There will be consequences for people within and outside of the war, so it is advised to proceed with caution.

Post your response here.